5 ms·

I want to help clarify but I’m having trouble parsing your question. Can you please rephrase?

nemothekid 5y ago
>An equally valid hypothesis is that harmlessly blowing off low-level steam prevents the atrocities higher up in the “pyramid”. On what basis are you making your claim that allowing people to openly make offensive jokes prevents higher level atrocities?
- shkkmo 5y ago
  He isn't making the claim, he is saying both claims are equally valid hypotheses (before you test against reality.)
- didgeoridoo 5y ago
  Oh I see, sorry. I’m not making that claim. I’m saying that there is equal evidence (none, as far as I know) for that claim as there is for the claim that certain jokes are somehow the structural foundation of genocide. Neither should be given much credence without evidence. The null hypothesis is that jokes neither promote nor prevent genocide, and I see no reason to reject it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mpyne 5y ago
    > jokes are somehow the structural foundation of genocide Again, the 'pyramid of hate' logic does not claim that jokes necessarily lead to genocide or that jokes are structurally required for genocide. Just that they can be one of many causes of erosion of the social boundaries that ensure people think of each other as people rather than dehumanizing others. It is only to the extent that jokes become a tool for hateful sappers to undermine your team that they start to become necessarily problematic, but you shouldn't let things get to that point.
- ddingus 5y ago
  https://youtu.be/B4mM4wP5cMw https://youtu.be/B4mM4wP5cMw Offensive jokes are very highly context sensitive. People can be offended very, some may argue too, easily. Other people are very difficult to offend. Hard to know. Humanizing the field of play can do a whole lot of good. Can get people talking in real terms and being OK on those terms. An overly fenced field of play can see building of tension despite the very best intent. There can be solidarity in all that. Just being people, same as any people is often solid grounding. Atrocities are harder in such a scenario. Everyone is more human, do unto others makes more sense when the others are similar, humans, wanting, needing similar things, running in similar ways. "Those other people" can often be the start of something really ugly, depending on just what gets attached to "other." We are as offended as we think we are. I am not marginalizing it at all! Being uber offended sucks. But, we do have options. We do manage our response to others. We do have control over how we see others, can relate to them, see it from their view. Humor is one of the more powerful ways to do that. It can bridge gaps, open doors, humanize others, make the very ugly, foul, something that does not own us. We have to be careful with "openly" and "offensive." The subset of expression sure to not offend is quite small. The scope of possible good, or at the least not nefarious intent is just as large.

>An equally valid hypothesis is that harmlessly blowing off low-level steam prevents the atrocities higher up in the “pyramid”. On what basis are you making your claim that allowing people to openly make offensive jokes prevents higher level atrocities?

shkkmo 5y ago
He isn't making the claim, he is saying both claims are equally valid hypotheses (before you test against reality.)
didgeoridoo 5y ago
Oh I see, sorry. I’m not making that claim. I’m saying that there is equal evidence (none, as far as I know) for that claim as there is for the claim that certain jokes are somehow the structural foundation of genocide. Neither should be given much credence without evidence. The null hypothesis is that jokes neither promote nor prevent genocide, and I see no reason to reject it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mpyne 5y ago
  > jokes are somehow the structural foundation of genocide Again, the 'pyramid of hate' logic does not claim that jokes necessarily lead to genocide or that jokes are structurally required for genocide. Just that they can be one of many causes of erosion of the social boundaries that ensure people think of each other as people rather than dehumanizing others. It is only to the extent that jokes become a tool for hateful sappers to undermine your team that they start to become necessarily problematic, but you shouldn't let things get to that point.
ddingus 5y ago
https://youtu.be/B4mM4wP5cMw https://youtu.be/B4mM4wP5cMw Offensive jokes are very highly context sensitive. People can be offended very, some may argue too, easily. Other people are very difficult to offend. Hard to know. Humanizing the field of play can do a whole lot of good. Can get people talking in real terms and being OK on those terms. An overly fenced field of play can see building of tension despite the very best intent. There can be solidarity in all that. Just being people, same as any people is often solid grounding. Atrocities are harder in such a scenario. Everyone is more human, do unto others makes more sense when the others are similar, humans, wanting, needing similar things, running in similar ways. "Those other people" can often be the start of something really ugly, depending on just what gets attached to "other." We are as offended as we think we are. I am not marginalizing it at all! Being uber offended sucks. But, we do have options. We do manage our response to others. We do have control over how we see others, can relate to them, see it from their view. Humor is one of the more powerful ways to do that. It can bridge gaps, open doors, humanize others, make the very ugly, foul, something that does not own us. We have to be careful with "openly" and "offensive." The subset of expression sure to not offend is quite small. The scope of possible good, or at the least not nefarious intent is just as large.